Lamb v. Lieber Correctional Institution Head Pharmacy Nurse
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10 , DENYING 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff shall have until May 21, 2010, to pay the full filing fee for this matter ($350.00). Should Plaintiff pay the filing fee, this m atter shall be referred to the Magistrate Judge to conduct a review of Plaintiff's complaint under § 1915A. If Plaintiff does not pay the full filing fee by May 21, 2010, or seek an extension of time in which to do so, this case shall, by additional order of this court, be dismissed without prejudice and without service of process. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 4/21/2010. (ncha, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENWOOD DIVISION Charles Willis Lamb, # 186788, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Lieber Correctional Institution; Head ) Pharmacy Nurse, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) C/A NO. 8:10-727-CMC-BHH
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's pro se complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), DSC, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation. On March 31, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis ("ifp") be denied, that Plaintiff be given an opportunity to pay the full filing fee, and that the matter be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process if Plaintiff does not pay the filing fee. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and Recommendation and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff has filed no objections and the time for doing so has expired. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo 1
determination of any portion of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). The court reviews the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (stating that "in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.") (citation omitted). After reviewing the record of this matter, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court agrees with the Report and therefore adopts and incorporates it as part of this order. Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ifp) is denied. Plaintiff shall have until May 21, 2010, to pay the full filing fee for this matter ($350.00).1 Should Plaintiff pay the filing fee, this matter shall be referred to the Magistrate Judge to conduct a review of Plaintiff's complaint under § 1915A. If Plaintiff does not pay the full filing fee by May 21, 2010, or seek an extension of time in which to do so, this case shall, by additional order of this court, be dismissed without prejudice and without service of process.
Payment should be made to: Clerk, U.S. District Court, 901 Richland Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201. 2
IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Columbia, South Carolina April 21, 2010
C:\Documents and Settings\nac60\Desktop\10-727 Order.wpd
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?